The issue was rejection of a rectification application due to delay while ITC was disputed. The Court allowed filing of appeal with delay condonation, emphasizing appellate remedy over technical rejection.
The issue was whether delayed filing of return bars deduction under Section 10AA. ITAT held that timely filing was not mandatory for the relevant years and allowed the deduction.
The tribunal examined whether delayed filing of Form 67 bars foreign tax credit. It held that filing before completion of assessment is sufficient, allowing the credit.
A statutory tax charge d noidt constitute a secured interest under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) therefore, the Court directed the removal of the TNVAT Department’s attachment over the corporate debtor’s property.
Smt. Satyabhama Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) The Hyderabad ITAT deleted the addition of ₹16.55 lakh u/s 69A, holding that cash found during search was duly explained by earlier accepted cash balance. The Tribunal also condoned a 97-day delay, adopting a liberal approach considering the assessee’s age, lack of digital access, and procedural difficulties. On merits, […]
The case examined whether a single show cause notice could cover multiple tax periods. The Court held such consolidation violates the GST framework and quashed the notice with liberty to reissue year-wise.
The issue was whether failure to deduct TDS due to court directions attracts default. The Tribunal held that compliance with binding interim orders prevents liability under Section 201.
The case addressed whether a refund rejection without granting a personal hearing and providing only seven days to respond was valid. The court set aside the order, holding that such action violated Rule 92(3) and principles of natural justice.
The court refused to entertain the writ petition, holding that an effective appellate remedy was available under the GST law. It emphasized that factual disputes and corrigendum validity must be examined through statutory appeals, not writ jurisdiction.
The Court held that Rule 86A applies only when the assessee fraudulently avails ITC. Since the allegation concerned the recipient’s ITC, the notice was without jurisdiction and was set aside.
